Parliament to get vote on Brexit deal

Comments

I just dont get the mentality of the brexit at any cost headbangers.
I suppose some people just dont give a flying fig about anybody else as long as they are ok which is unnaturally selfish and narcissistic.
Some people just want to see the world burn.

It is the head banging remainers who think they can somehow ignore freely expressed wish of the British people.

It's the head banging Brexiteers who don't seem to understand that the referendum was advisory and ultimately influenced by lies (not just from the leave campaigns, but as it now turns out Russian bots on social media).

1) The chances of Dimbo Davis getting a "good" or a sensible deal are just about zero

2) You have to question given the undue influence of the headbangers in the Tory Party if he's even trying to get a good or sensible deal

So...chances are pretty high that the deal will be shit

Now common sense says you would vote down a shit deal...but the alternative is not going to be a better deal...it's going to be nothing.

So what happens...parliament votes down the shit deal, we crash out with zero deal....and the headbangers get what they actually wanted from the start....with the added bonus that they can then blame everyone who voted down the shit deal for it.

1) The chances of Dimbo Davis getting a "good" or a sensible deal are just about zero

2) You have to question given the undue influence of the headbangers in the Tory Party if he's even trying to get a good or sensible deal

So...chances are pretty high that the deal will be shit

Now common sense says you would vote down a shit deal...but the alternative is not going to be a better deal...it's going to be nothing.

So what happens...parliament votes down the shit deal, we crash out with zero deal....and the headbangers get what they actually wanted from the start....with the added bonus that they can then blame everyone who voted down the shit deal for it.

Read the thread. This has been gone over many times.

The approval for the deal will be Primary Legislation. That is amendable. It can therefore be amended so as to reject the deal and either stop Brexit, or at the very least compel the Government to extend Article 50.

I just dont get the mentality of the brexit at any cost headbangers.
I suppose some people just dont give a flying fig about anybody else as long as they are ok which is unnaturally selfish and narcissistic.
Some people just want to see the world burn.

It is the head banging remainers who think they can somehow ignore freely expressed wish of the British people.

Yet it is the Leavers who are so against asking the people to freely express their wishes again as they know they wouldn't have a hope of winning.

1) The chances of Dimbo Davis getting a "good" or a sensible deal are just about zero

2) You have to question given the undue influence of the headbangers in the Tory Party if he's even trying to get a good or sensible deal

So...chances are pretty high that the deal will be shit

Now common sense says you would vote down a shit deal...but the alternative is not going to be a better deal...it's going to be nothing.

So what happens...parliament votes down the shit deal, we crash out with zero deal....and the headbangers get what they actually wanted from the start....with the added bonus that they can then blame everyone who voted down the shit deal for it.

Read the thread. This has been gone over many times.

The approval for the deal will be Primary Legislation. That is amendable. It can therefore be amended so as to reject the deal and either stop Brexit, or at the very least compel the Government to extend Article 50.

Oh and the EU will express no opinion on all of this while we mess around???

1) The chances of Dimbo Davis getting a "good" or a sensible deal are just about zero

2) You have to question given the undue influence of the headbangers in the Tory Party if he's even trying to get a good or sensible deal

So...chances are pretty high that the deal will be shit

Now common sense says you would vote down a shit deal...but the alternative is not going to be a better deal...it's going to be nothing.

So what happens...parliament votes down the shit deal, we crash out with zero deal....and the headbangers get what they actually wanted from the start....with the added bonus that they can then blame everyone who voted down the shit deal for it.

sounds okay.if the deal gets voted down the uk leaves without a deal. so we leave anyway.

no.
Parliament can require Gov to revoke the A50 notice at a point prior to March 29 & we stay in on our current terms.It depends on what MPs want.

As opposed to the electorate who voted them in.
Of course whatever happens in the UK Parliament extends only as far as The Channel and the EU will do (as we have seen on may occasions) whatever pleases them (not the EU citizens) most regardless of what member country's want.

In the extremely unlikely situation that we do remain in it will make Barnier's current negotiating stance look like a message of good will and we, as a country, will be over a barrel for life. Expect rebates to vanish, the Euro to replace the pound and ultimately the Bank of England to become subservient to the European central bank as the final act of integration into the (dis)United States of Europe. Of course, all of this is stuff of wet dreams for Remainer Europhiles however those who voted Leave will either go to the streets with flaming torches and pitchforks or just emigrate from the country that will be formally known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The overarching principle is stated in Article 50 (1) of the Lisbon Treaty:

Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

The emphasis is on withdrawing in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. Plain English.

The Supreme Court has already stated that the only way to make withdrawal constitutional is by making primary legislation:

“The change in the law required to implement the referendum’s outcome must be made in the only way permitted by the UK constitution, namely by legislation.”

"The Government will be accountable to Parliament for those negotiations and the process cannot be completed without the enactment by Parliament of primary legislation in some form.”

The SC has also established that in order to withdraw, the ECA 1972 has to be repealed and - importantly - its functions have to be replaced by new legislation.

The EU Withdrawal Bill is the only means of doing so and in order to make withdrawal possible, it must pass and become an Act of Parliament.

The government has now conceded that Parliament must also create an Act which approves the "deal" - e.g. the new treaty and all it covers.

That means that both Acts must pass in order to make withdrawal not only legal but in fact to make it possible at all. Without those Acts in force, withdrawal would not be in accordance with our constitutional requirements. This in turn means that Article 50 (1) is not fulfilled meaning that the EU can't legally complete Article 50 (3) - e.g. allowing for all treaties to cease on March 29 2019 at 23:00 GMT.

The Withdrawal Bill will not pass in its current form and the date/time amendment is unlikely to pass.

To complicate matters further, there is a high likelihood that a hard border between NI and the ROI is found to be unconstitutional in the UK and the ROI due to the the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 upon conclusion of the Good Friday Agreement.

Again, if ceasing of the treaties would cause the UK to act unconstitutionally then the EU's hands are tied; it can not legally allow for the withdrawal of the UK and this is particularly the case where the constitutional requirements of another member state are impacted.

Lastly, and to make things even more complex - there is a Human Rights angle to a hard border as well. A group of border residents are working on that with the aim that a hard border is to be ruled in breach of the Articles 8 and 11 of the Human Rights Convention, to which the UK is a signatory.

So Brexit can be stopped by the following occurring:

Withdrawal Bill not made into an Act by March 2019.
"Treaty Bill" not made into an Act by March 2019.
NI/ROI border ruled unconstitutional.
NI/ROI border in breach of Human Rights Act.

Of course there are also a number of other options such as the Withdrawal or Treaty Bills only passing with transition period and/or with specifics of the new relationship being enshrined in law.

If that were to happen then the only options are off the shelf models as anything else would be at the mercy of the EU agreeing to it, which in effect, would mean Parliament would continue to be trapped with the risk of creating unconstitutional legislation.

I just dont get the mentality of the brexit at any cost headbangers.
I suppose some people just dont give a flying fig about anybody else as long as they are ok which is unnaturally selfish and narcissistic.
Some people just want to see the world burn.

It is the head banging remainers who think they can somehow ignore freely expressed wish of the British people.

It's the head banging Brexiteers who don't seem to understand that the referendum was advisory and ultimately influenced by lies (not just from the leave campaigns, but as it now turns out Russian bots on social media).

Two questions:
1. What is the point of asking someones advice if you have absolutely no intention to act upon it? (I accept that there was this issue of Cameron having a knife in his back from Tory MP's about to lose their seat to UKIP)
2. At what point(s) during the referendum campaign did anyone mention this was a non-binding referendum? I remember Cameron wagging his finger at us stating that this was a once in a lifetime choice, no going back, if you vote to leave you'll have to live with the consequences (of course, not him personally, and of course not necessarily bad!)

I just dont get the mentality of the brexit at any cost headbangers.
I suppose some people just dont give a flying fig about anybody else as long as they are ok which is unnaturally selfish and narcissistic.
Some people just want to see the world burn.

It is the head banging remainers who think they can somehow ignore freely expressed wish of the British people.

It's the head banging Brexiteers who don't seem to understand that the referendum was advisory and ultimately influenced by lies (not just from the leave campaigns, but as it now turns out Russian bots on social media).

Two questions:
1. What is the point of asking someones advice if you have absolutely no intention to act upon it? (I accept that there was this issue of Cameron having a knife in his back from Tory MP's about to lose their seat to UKIP)
2. At what point(s) during the referendum campaign did anyone mention this was a non-binding referendum? I remember Cameron wagging his finger at us stating that this was a once in a lifetime choice, no going back, if you vote to leave you'll have to live with the consequences (of course, not him personally, and of course not necessarily bad!)

1) it was mentioned when parliament agreed to the referendum being used.
2) Cameron lied, as all Tory leaders do. Just as he lied that he'll enact article 50 the next day when he didn't have the authority to do that.

1) The chances of Dimbo Davis getting a "good" or a sensible deal are just about zero

2) You have to question given the undue influence of the headbangers in the Tory Party if he's even trying to get a good or sensible deal

So...chances are pretty high that the deal will be shit

Now common sense says you would vote down a shit deal...but the alternative is not going to be a better deal...it's going to be nothing.

So what happens...parliament votes down the shit deal, we crash out with zero deal....and the headbangers get what they actually wanted from the start....with the added bonus that they can then blame everyone who voted down the shit deal for it.

Read the thread. This has been gone over many times.

The approval for the deal will be Primary Legislation. That is amendable. It can therefore be amended so as to reject the deal and either stop Brexit, or at the very least compel the Government to extend Article 50.

his isn't the message that's coming over to me. But I hope you're right.

however those who voted Leave will either go to the streets with flaming torches and pitchforks or just emigrate from the country that will be formally known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Oh please. I only swapped my underwear a week ago. That image is just so hysterical.

I very much doubt it will be the former, as nurse won't let them near matches. If it's the latter, then fine. The more the merrier. It wouldn't be the entrepreneurs, the creative, the money makers, the contributors the country would lose. It would be fantastically better off without the leavers.

As regards the thread subject, Davis attempting to be clever is a very dangerous thing. Sad to see the supine remainers like Claire Perry and Robin Walker be so utterly pathetic this morning, trying to pretend it's a meaningful vote. I fully realise the majority of Tory MPs are such sheep, they'll just fall in line. There are, however, enough with the guts of Allen, Soubry, Grieve to put the country before party. I fully encourage everyone on our side to email their support to them.

1) The chances of Dimbo Davis getting a "good" or a sensible deal are just about zero

2) You have to question given the undue influence of the headbangers in the Tory Party if he's even trying to get a good or sensible deal

So...chances are pretty high that the deal will be shit

Now common sense says you would vote down a shit deal...but the alternative is not going to be a better deal...it's going to be nothing.

So what happens...parliament votes down the shit deal, we crash out with zero deal....and the headbangers get what they actually wanted from the start....with the added bonus that they can then blame everyone who voted down the shit deal for it.

Read the thread. This has been gone over many times.

The approval for the deal will be Primary Legislation. That is amendable. It can therefore be amended so as to reject the deal and either stop Brexit, or at the very least compel the Government to extend Article 50.

his isn't the message that's coming over to me. But I hope you're right.

Read what legal bods are saying. Media are clueless and just parrot the latest feed from politicians. Those same legal bods were spot on with SC ruling last Autumn.

The overarching principle is stated in Article 50 (1) of the Lisbon Treaty:

Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

The emphasis is on withdrawing in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. Plain English.

The Supreme Court has already stated that the only way to make withdrawal constitutional is by making primary legislation:

“The change in the law required to implement the referendum’s outcome must be made in the only way permitted by the UK constitution, namely by legislation.”

"The Government will be accountable to Parliament for those negotiations and the process cannot be completed without the enactment by Parliament of primary legislation in some form.”

The SC has also established that in order to withdraw, the ECA 1972 has to be repealed and - importantly - its functions have to be replaced by new legislation.

The EU Withdrawal Bill is the only means of doing so and in order to make withdrawal possible, it must pass and become an Act of Parliament.

The government has now conceded that Parliament must also create an Act which approves the "deal" - e.g. the new treaty and all it covers.

That means that both Acts must pass in order to make withdrawal not only legal but in fact to make it possible at all. Without those Acts in force, withdrawal would not be in accordance with our constitutional requirements. This in turn means that Article 50 (1) is not fulfilled meaning that the EU can't legally complete Article 50 (3) - e.g. allowing for all treaties to cease on March 29 2019 at 23:00 GMT.

The Withdrawal Bill will not pass in its current form and the date/time amendment is unlikely to pass.

To complicate matters further, there is a high likelihood that a hard border between NI and the ROI is found to be unconstitutional in the UK and the ROI due to the the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 upon conclusion of the Good Friday Agreement.

Again, if ceasing of the treaties would cause the UK to act unconstitutionally then the EU's hands are tied; it can not legally allow for the withdrawal of the UK and this is particularly the case where the constitutional requirements of another member state are impacted.

Lastly, and to make things even more complex - there is a Human Rights angle to a hard border as well. A group of border residents are working on that with the aim that a hard border is to be ruled in breach of the Articles 8 and 11 of the Human Rights Convention, to which the UK is a signatory.

So Brexit can be stopped by the following occurring:

Withdrawal Bill not made into an Act by March 2019.
"Treaty Bill" not made into an Act by March 2019.
NI/ROI border ruled unconstitutional.
NI/ROI border in breach of Human Rights Act.

Of course there are also a number of other options such as the Withdrawal or Treaty Bills only passing with transition period and/or with specifics of the new relationship being enshrined in law.

If that were to happen then the only options are off the shelf models as anything else would be at the mercy of the EU agreeing to it, which in effect, would mean Parliament would continue to be trapped with the risk of creating unconstitutional legislation.

A very informative post. In the event of parliament rejecting the deal, or being stuck in limbo with the Ireland border, I can't see the EU saying "you haven't left according to your constitutional requirements".... Whilst the remain lot would be claiming we have left by default. Things would begin to get very heated at that point.

The overarching principle is stated in Article 50 (1) of the Lisbon Treaty:

Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

The emphasis is on withdrawing in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. Plain English.

The Supreme Court has already stated that the only way to make withdrawal constitutional is by making primary legislation:

“The change in the law required to implement the referendum’s outcome must be made in the only way permitted by the UK constitution, namely by legislation.”

"The Government will be accountable to Parliament for those negotiations and the process cannot be completed without the enactment by Parliament of primary legislation in some form.”

The SC has also established that in order to withdraw, the ECA 1972 has to be repealed and - importantly - its functions have to be replaced by new legislation.

The EU Withdrawal Bill is the only means of doing so and in order to make withdrawal possible, it must pass and become an Act of Parliament.

The government has now conceded that Parliament must also create an Act which approves the "deal" - e.g. the new treaty and all it covers.

That means that both Acts must pass in order to make withdrawal not only legal but in fact to make it possible at all. Without those Acts in force, withdrawal would not be in accordance with our constitutional requirements. This in turn means that Article 50 (1) is not fulfilled meaning that the EU can't legally complete Article 50 (3) - e.g. allowing for all treaties to cease on March 29 2019 at 23:00 GMT.

The Withdrawal Bill will not pass in its current form and the date/time amendment is unlikely to pass.

To complicate matters further, there is a high likelihood that a hard border between NI and the ROI is found to be unconstitutional in the UK and the ROI due to the the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 upon conclusion of the Good Friday Agreement.

Again, if ceasing of the treaties would cause the UK to act unconstitutionally then the EU's hands are tied; it can not legally allow for the withdrawal of the UK and this is particularly the case where the constitutional requirements of another member state are impacted.

Lastly, and to make things even more complex - there is a Human Rights angle to a hard border as well. A group of border residents are working on that with the aim that a hard border is to be ruled in breach of the Articles 8 and 11 of the Human Rights Convention, to which the UK is a signatory.

So Brexit can be stopped by the following occurring:

Withdrawal Bill not made into an Act by March 2019.
"Treaty Bill" not made into an Act by March 2019.
NI/ROI border ruled unconstitutional.
NI/ROI border in breach of Human Rights Act.

Of course there are also a number of other options such as the Withdrawal or Treaty Bills only passing with transition period and/or with specifics of the new relationship being enshrined in law.

If that were to happen then the only options are off the shelf models as anything else would be at the mercy of the EU agreeing to it, which in effect, would mean Parliament would continue to be trapped with the risk of creating unconstitutional legislation.

A very informative post. In the event of parliament rejecting the deal, or being stuck in limbo with the Ireland border, I can't see the EU saying "you haven't left according to your constitutional requirements".... Whilst the remain lot would be claiming we have left by default. Thing would begin to get very heated at that point.

Why has Corbyn been speaking to EU? Why were hard Brexiteers getting all hot under the collar? What was discussed in the Nick Clegg/Lord Adonis/Ken Clarke meeting with Barnier? You could speculate that the EU response to the voting down of the agreement would be top of the agenda. What next?

I just dont get the mentality of the brexit at any cost headbangers.
I suppose some people just dont give a flying fig about anybody else as long as they are ok which is unnaturally selfish and narcissistic.
Some people just want to see the world burn.

It is the head banging remainers who think they can somehow ignore freely expressed wish of the British people.

It's the head banging Brexiteers who don't seem to understand that the referendum was advisory and ultimately influenced by lies (not just from the leave campaigns, but as it now turns out Russian bots on social media).

Two questions:
1. What is the point of asking someones advice if you have absolutely no intention to act upon it? (I accept that there was this issue of Cameron having a knife in his back from Tory MP's about to lose their seat to UKIP)
2. At what point(s) during the referendum campaign did anyone mention this was a non-binding referendum? I remember Cameron wagging his finger at us stating that this was a once in a lifetime choice, no going back, if you vote to leave you'll have to live with the consequences (of course, not him personally, and of course not necessarily bad!)

The referendum was advisory as any referendum that doesn’t refer to pre-agreed legislation (e.g. and Act of Parliament) that details what happens depending on which way the vote goes.

Refer to the AV referendum to see the difference, or indeed the Supreme Court ruling non Brexit.

The overarching principle is stated in Article 50 (1) of the Lisbon Treaty:

Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

The emphasis is on withdrawing in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. Plain English.

The Supreme Court has already stated that the only way to make withdrawal constitutional is by making primary legislation:

“The change in the law required to implement the referendum’s outcome must be made in the only way permitted by the UK constitution, namely by legislation.”

"The Government will be accountable to Parliament for those negotiations and the process cannot be completed without the enactment by Parliament of primary legislation in some form.”

The SC has also established that in order to withdraw, the ECA 1972 has to be repealed and - importantly - its functions have to be replaced by new legislation.

The EU Withdrawal Bill is the only means of doing so and in order to make withdrawal possible, it must pass and become an Act of Parliament.

The government has now conceded that Parliament must also create an Act which approves the "deal" - e.g. the new treaty and all it covers.

That means that both Acts must pass in order to make withdrawal not only legal but in fact to make it possible at all. Without those Acts in force, withdrawal would not be in accordance with our constitutional requirements. This in turn means that Article 50 (1) is not fulfilled meaning that the EU can't legally complete Article 50 (3) - e.g. allowing for all treaties to cease on March 29 2019 at 23:00 GMT.

The Withdrawal Bill will not pass in its current form and the date/time amendment is unlikely to pass.

To complicate matters further, there is a high likelihood that a hard border between NI and the ROI is found to be unconstitutional in the UK and the ROI due to the the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 upon conclusion of the Good Friday Agreement.

Again, if ceasing of the treaties would cause the UK to act unconstitutionally then the EU's hands are tied; it can not legally allow for the withdrawal of the UK and this is particularly the case where the constitutional requirements of another member state are impacted.

Lastly, and to make things even more complex - there is a Human Rights angle to a hard border as well. A group of border residents are working on that with the aim that a hard border is to be ruled in breach of the Articles 8 and 11 of the Human Rights Convention, to which the UK is a signatory.

So Brexit can be stopped by the following occurring:

Withdrawal Bill not made into an Act by March 2019.
"Treaty Bill" not made into an Act by March 2019.
NI/ROI border ruled unconstitutional.
NI/ROI border in breach of Human Rights Act.

Of course there are also a number of other options such as the Withdrawal or Treaty Bills only passing with transition period and/or with specifics of the new relationship being enshrined in law.

If that were to happen then the only options are off the shelf models as anything else would be at the mercy of the EU agreeing to it, which in effect, would mean Parliament would continue to be trapped with the risk of creating unconstitutional legislation.

A very informative post. In the event of parliament rejecting the deal, or being stuck in limbo with the Ireland border, I can't see the EU saying "you haven't left according to your constitutional requirements".... Whilst the remain lot would be claiming we have left by default. Things would begin to get very heated at that point.

The EU would have no choice other than to say that the status quo remains as it would not accept legal liability. It would simply notify the UK that withdrawal can’t be completed until the internal situation has been clarified.

At that point the government would have no choice other than to call a GE which means all bets are off.

In fact it would be the biggest constitutional crisis the UK has ever experienced.